Did special counsel Jack Smith employ deceptive persuasion techniques in his investigation into former President Donald Trump? That’s the claim made by one of the lawyers engaged in the case, and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is demanding an explanation.
Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, wanted documentation relating to allegations made by one of his senior prosecutors in a letter sent to Smith on Thursday that “allegedly improperly pressured Stanley Woodward, a lawyer representing a defendant indicted by you.”
The accusations of impropriety stem from a meeting between Jay Bratt and Woodward — who represents one of the defendants in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, Walt Nauta — in which Bratt supposedly pressured Woodward “by implying that the Administration would look more favorably on Mr. Woodward’s candidacy for a judgeship if Mr. Woodward’s client cooperated with the Office of the Special Counsel.”
Jordan gave Smith until Sept. 21 to provide documents related to the allegations.
“In November 2022, when your prosecutors were trying to secure the cooperation of Walt Nauta—who is alleged to have ‘move[d] boxes of documents’ at Mar-a-Lago—prosecutors, including Mr. Bratt, summoned Mr. Woodward to a meeting at the Department’s headquarters for ‘an urgent matter that they were reluctant to discuss over the phone,’” Jordan said in the letter, obtained by Just the News.
“When Mr. Woodward arrived, Mr. Bratt threatened him that Mr. Nauta should cooperate ‘because he had given potentially conflicting testimony that could result in a false statement.’ Mr. Bratt commented that he did not take Mr. Woodward as a ‘Trump guy’ and indicated that he was confident that Mr. Woodward ‘would do the right thing,’” the letter continued.
Bratt then allegedly “referenced Mr. Woodward’s pending application for a judgeship on the D.C. superior court, implying that the Biden Administration would perceive Mr. Woodward’s application more favorably if Mr. Nauta was a cooperating witness for the Special Counsel against President Trump.”
Woodward immediately cut off contact with the Department of Justice, stating that no more conversations would take place unless Nauta was charged or given immunity.
According to Jordan’s letter, Smith’s office did not stop there.
“After Mr. Woodward declined to give in to Mr. Bratt’s intimidation and coercion, Mr. Bratt once again sought to induce Mr. Nauta’s cooperation by attacking Mr. Woodward’s representation. On August 2, 2023, Mr. Bratt filed a motion in Mr. Nauta’s case raising alleged conflicts of interests presented by Mr. Woodward’s representation of two other witnesses “who could be called to testify at a trial in the case involving classified documents at Mar-a-Lago,’” the letter read.
“He further suggested that the court should ‘procure independent counsel’ to be present at the hearing ‘to advise Mr. Woodward’s clients regarding the potential conflicts.’ Mr. Woodward’s reply brief stated that Mr. Bratt’s intimidation threats were merely ‘an attempt to diminish the Court’s authority over the proceedings in this case and to undermine attorney-client relationships without any basis specific to the facts of such representation.’”
Meet Jay Bratt.
Bratt is one of Jack Smith’s prosecutors and top aides.
He allegedly improperly pressured Stanley Woodward, a lawyer representing a defendant indicted by Smith.
How?
He implied that the Biden Administration would look more favorably on Mr. Woodward’s… pic.twitter.com/jcxCZt4oq3
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 8, 2023
This could be significant since, as Just the News reported, Woodward also first represented Yuscil Taveras, a Mar-a-Lago IT employee.
Taveras agreed to turn state’s evidence after speaking with a public attorney, which saved him from a perjury conviction and resulted in extra counts being added to Trump’s indictment, according to The Hill.
The letter requests that Smith’s office provide information on three specific topics concerning Woodward.
First: “All documents and communications referring or relating to any appointment, meeting, or other visit by Mr. Woodward to the Justice Department, including the Office of the Special Counsel, concerning the representation of Mr. Nauta.”
Second: “All documents and communications between or among the Office of the Special Counsel, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Office of the Deputy Attorney General referring or relating to Mr. Woodward and his representation of individuals involved in the matters before you.”
Finally: “All documents and communications referring or relating to Mr. Woodward’s application to fill a vacancy on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.”
It remains to be seen whether this is a game-changer in any manner; undoubtedly, the biggest consequence may be the doubt it reflects on whatever testimony Taveras offers against the former president, given the odor of coercion that could hang over it.
However, if the odor of coercion hangs over a portion of the case, it might extend throughout the entire procedure — and keep in mind, this is a case taking place in Florida, which is Trump territory.
Even if legal experts have warned that the classified documents case presents the most difficulty based on the raw evidence in the indictment alone, if it turns out Smith’s special counsel team used coercion to get people to cooperate, he’ll face an uphill battle establishing credibility with a jury — and with voters, as well.
